same line /lack of imagination

"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam." - Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 12:55 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at
> >the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election
> >despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
> >According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million
> >registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them
> >risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful
> >election has long been seen as the keystone in President
> >Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional
> >processes in South Vietnam."
> >
> > - Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled
> >'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.
>
> Damn, dude.
> -Carl

Although now Vietnam is a Democratic state, no? (even though it was a lng shot
then)

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.dividebypi.com

unfortunately not

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

>
>Although now Vietnam is a Democratic state, no? (even though it was a lng shot >then)
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Which would you say is more democratic: present-day
Vietnam or the present-day United States?

-Carl

> unfortunately not
>
>> Although now Vietnam is a Democratic state, no? (even
>> though it was a lng shot then)

is any one saying vietnam is democratic at all?

Carl Lumma wrote:

>Which would you say is more democratic: present-day
>Vietnam or the present-day United States?
>
>-Carl
>
> >
>>unfortunately not
>>
>> >>
>>>Although now Vietnam is a Democratic state, no? (even
>>>though it was a lng shot then)
>>> >>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Aaron, where are you getting your information? Last time I checked,
Vietnam had been a Communist state for the past 30 years. Two years
after the U.S. withdrew, North Vietnam took over South Vietnam and
imposed Communism on its people. Not that I'm saying the withdrawal
was a bad idea! But . . .

Vietnam is only now lifting its people out of the lowest levels of
poverty, by adopting some pro-market reforms (like China).

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 February 2005 12:55 am, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > >"United States officials were surprised and heartened today at
> > >the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election
> > >despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
> > >According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million
> > >registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them
> > >risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful
> > >election has long been seen as the keystone in President
> > >Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional
> > >processes in South Vietnam."
> > >
> > > - Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled
> > >'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.
> >
> > Damn, dude.
> > -Carl
>
> Although now Vietnam is a Democratic state, no? (even though it was
a lng shot
> then)
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson
> http://www.akjmusic.com
> http://www.dividebypi.com

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 05:46:42 -0000
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>
Subject: Re: same line /lack of imagination

> Which would you say is more democratic: present-day
> Vietnam or the present-day United States?

> -Carl

I couldn't, really, and I'm not sure what the question is driving at. In any case, I'm sure that the illusion of [freedom and?] democracy is infinitely preferable to no illusion whatsoever. ;-)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> Aaron, where are you getting your information? Last time I checked,
> Vietnam had been a Communist state for the past 30 years.

There is no inherent incompatibility between Communism and Democracy.
Vietnam is indeed Communist, but the members of their Natiional
Assembly are voted in by direct popular vote. The National Assembly
then chooses a president. This is not much different from what we do.
We vote for electors who we are pretty sure will vote in the president
we want.

John Starrett

is there elections like ours, with basically one choice on the ballot?

John Starrett wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> >
>>Aaron, where are you getting your information? Last time I checked, >>Vietnam had been a Communist state for the past 30 years. >> >>
>
>There is no inherent incompatibility between Communism and Democracy.
>Vietnam is indeed Communist, but the members of their Natiional
>Assembly are voted in by direct popular vote. The National Assembly
>then chooses a president. This is not much different from what we do.
>We vote for electors who we are pretty sure will vote in the president
>we want.
>
>John Starrett >
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

John, are you saying that the Vietnamese people have, of their own
free will, democratically elected members of the Communist Party to
the National Assembly for the last 30 years, but in any given
election, the Communists could be ousted if the people willed it, and
voted for members of another party? Or is it not that simple . . .

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Starrett" <jstarret@s...>
wrote:
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...>
wrote:
> >
> > Aaron, where are you getting your information? Last time I
checked,
> > Vietnam had been a Communist state for the past 30 years.
>
> There is no inherent incompatibility between Communism and
Democracy.
> Vietnam is indeed Communist, but the members of their Natiional
> Assembly are voted in by direct popular vote. The National Assembly
> then chooses a president. This is not much different from what we
do.
> We vote for electors who we are pretty sure will vote in the
president
> we want.
>
> John Starrett

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
>
> John, are you saying that the Vietnamese people have, of their own
> free will, democratically elected members of the Communist Party to
> the National Assembly for the last 30 years,

You would have to ask a Vietnamese.

> but in any given
> election, the Communists could be ousted if the people willed it, >
> and
> voted for members of another party?

Possibly, if there was another party with sufficient resources and
propaganda to convince them. Again, ask a native.

> Or is it not that simple . . .

It never is. The political information on any country in the world can
b accessed on the CIA website.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

It is still non-partisan, as far as I can tell.

However, my main point is that there is no *inherent* conflict between
Democracy and Communism. One is a method of electing representatives
and the other an economic system.

John Starrett

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Starrett" <jstarret@s...>
wrote:

> > but in any given
> > election, the Communists could be ousted if the people willed it,
>
> > and
> > voted for members of another party?
>
> Possibly, if there was another party with sufficient resources and
> propaganda to convince them. Again, ask a native.

Do you think the CIA is witholding some information here?

> > Or is it not that simple . . .
>
> It never is. The political information on any country in the world
can
> b accessed on the CIA website.
> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html
>
> It is still non-partisan, as far as I can tell.

This website states:

"Political parties and leaders:
only party - Communist Party of Vietnam or CPV [Nong Duc Manh,
general secretary]"

> However, my main point is that there is no *inherent* conflict
between
> Democracy and Communism. One is a method of electing representatives
> and the other an economic system.

If there is only one political party in the entire country, it would
be hard to consider that country a democracy. But if there were more
than one, then certainly it would be possible for Communism to come
about in a democratic manner.

> If there is only one political party in the entire country, it
> would be hard to consider that country a democracy. But if
> there were more than one, then certainly it would be possible
> for Communism to come about in a democratic manner.

I would say "if there is exactly one...", since I do not see
parties as a necessary condition for democracy. In fact, they
stem most directly from parliamentary procedure, which is
also not a necessary condition for democracy.

-Carl

> However, my main point is that there is no *inherent* conflict
> between Democracy and Communism. One is a method of electing
> representatives and the other an economic system.

Communism is fairly ill-defined. Socialism seems, in many
cases, to be a valid synonym. There is no incompatibility
between Socialism and Democracy (in fact, groups like
worldsocialism.org are among Democracy's greatest champions).
But democracy is *not* a method of electing representatives.
Pure democracy does not employ representation.

-Carl

hi John,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Starrett" <jstarret@s...>
wrote:

> However, my main point is that there is no *inherent*
> conflict between Democracy and Communism. One is a method
> of electing representatives and the other an economic system.

and thank you for making that point. i've believed for
a long time that, assuming it could be made to work correctly,
the best politico-economic solution to society's ills is
a combination of democratic politics with communist economics.

-monz

it is pretty hard to really define Communism at all. For the most part Socialism covers what need to be said. It should also be stressed that the US form of government is far from democracy. Which if set upon, would be best to dissolve the 'states' as meaningless since they do not for the most part represent true regional subunits. Some would remain like Utah i imagine being pretty uniform. The democratic element of our government is good in that it allows revolutions without violence. In fact , the fascist takeover, we know witness, we can say is much less bloody, (so Far) than lets say the one in Chile. Why use guns when you have TV to take care of the masses.

monz wrote:

>hi John,
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "John Starrett" <jstarret@s...> >wrote:
>
> >
>>However, my main point is that there is no *inherent* >>conflict between Democracy and Communism. One is a method
>>of electing representatives and the other an economic system.
>> >>
>
>
>and thank you for making that point. i've believed for
>a long time that, assuming it could be made to work correctly,
>the best politico-economic solution to society's ills is
>a combination of democratic politics with communist economics.
>
>
>-monz
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles